69448 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ NAAQS are 

those determined by the EPA as requisite to protect 

the public health, allowing an adequate margin of 

safety, and ‘‘secondary’’ standards are those 

determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the 

public welfare from any known or anticipated 

adverse effects associated with the presence of such 

air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section 

109(b). 

2On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA 

revised the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standards to 

35 mg/m3, and on January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), 

the EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 standard 

to a level of 12.0 mg/m3. We recently published a 

final rule revoking the 1997 primary annual PM2.5

NAAQS for areas designated (or redesignated) 

attainment for that standard and revising the 

regulations governing implementation of the PM2.5

standards. See 81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016). 

However, because the San Joaquin Valley remains 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

primary PM2.5 standard, the 1997 primary annual 

PM2.5 standard will remain in effect in the San 

Joaquin Valley under the EPA’s recent PM2.5

implementation rule until such time as the area is 

redesignated to attainment for that standard. Thus, 

even though the EPA has lowered the 24-hour and 

ECCS rulemaking and stated that PRM– 

50–75 would be addressed by 

alternative means. The NRC will issue a 

separate Federal Register document to 

disposition PRM–50–75. 

V. Conclusion 

The NRC is no longer pursuing the 

‘‘Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-OfCoolant Accident Technical 

Requirements’’ rulemaking for the 

reasons discussed in this document. In 

the next edition of the Unified Agenda, 

the NRC will update the entry for this 

rulemaking and reference this document 

to indicate that the 50.46a ECCS 

rulemaking is no longer being pursued. 

This rulemaking activity will appear in 

the completed section of that edition of 

the Unified Agenda, but will not appear 

in subsequent editions. If the NRC 

decides to pursue a similar or related 

rulemaking in the future, it will inform 

the public through a new rulemaking 

entry in the Unified Agenda. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day 

of September 2016. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Victor M. McCree, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2016–24189 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0494; FRL–9953–65– 

Region 9] 

Findings of Failure To Attain the 1997 

PM2.5 Standards; California; San 

Joaquin Valley 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area failed to attain the 

1997 annual and 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards by the 

December 31, 2015 ‘‘Serious’’ area 

attainment date. This proposed 

determination is based upon monitored 

air quality data from 2013 through 2015. 

If the EPA finalizes this determination 

as proposed, the State of California will 

be required to submit a revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

that, among other elements, provides for 

expeditious attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards and for a five percent 

annual reduction in the emissions of 

direct PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor 

pollutant. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 7, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0494 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Rory Mays at mays.rory@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region 9, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. San Joaquin Valley Designations, 

Classifications, and Attainment Dates for 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

II. Proposed Determination and 

Consequences 

A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions 

B. Monitoring Network Considerations 

C. Data Considerations and Proposed 

Determination 

D. Consequences for Serious PM2.5

Nonattainment Area Failing To Attain 

Standards by Attainment Date 

III. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

Under section 109 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), the EPA has 

established national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for 

certain pervasive air pollutants (referred 

to as ‘‘criteria pollutants’’) and conducts 

periodic reviews of the NAAQS to 

determine whether they should be 

revised or whether new NAAQS should 

be established. 

On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), the 

EPA replaced the original standard for 

particulate matter, measured as total 

suspended particulate matter (TSP) (i.e., 

particles roughly 30 micrometers or 

less), with new standards that replaced 

TSP as the indicator for particulate 

matter with a new indicator that 

includes only those particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), the 

EPA revised the standards for 

particulate matter by establishing new 

standards for particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). 

The EPA established primary and 

secondary annual and 24-hour 

standards for PM2.5.1 The annual 

primary and secondary standards were 

set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 

the 24-hour primary and secondary 

standards were set at 65 mg/m3, based on 

the 3-year average of the 98th percentile 

of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 

monitoring site within an area. See 40 

CFR 50.7. Collectively, we refer herein 

to the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5

NAAQS as the ‘‘1997 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ or 

‘‘1997 PM2.5 standards.’’ 2 The EPA 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69449 

annual PM2.5 standards, the original 1997 PM2.5

standards remain in effect in the San Joaquin Valley 

and represent the standards for which today’s 

proposed determination are made. 3EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, 

No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/ 

002bF, October 2004. 4 80 FR 15340, 15342 (March 23, 2015). 

5 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005). 

6 Id. 

7 40 CFR 81.305. The 2001–2003 design values for 

the San Joaquin Valley were 21.8 mg/m3 for the 

annual standard and 82 mg/m3 for the 24-hour 

standard. See EPA design value workbook dated 

August 28, 2014, worksheets ‘‘Table 3a’’ and ‘‘Table 

3b.’’ 

8For a precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

9 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011). 

10 Id. at 69924. 

11 Id. Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A), the 

attainment date for a nonattainment area is ‘‘the 

date by which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five 

years from the date such area was designated 

nonattainment,’’ except that EPA may extend the 

attainment date as appropriate for a period no 

greater than ten years from the date of designation 

as nonattainment, considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 

pollution control measures. CAA section 

172(a)(2)(A). 

12Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘NRDC’’). 

13 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). As part of this 

rulemaking, EPA established a December 31, 2014 

deadline for states to submit attainment-related and 

nonattainment new source review SIP elements 

required for PM2.5 nonattainment areas pursuant to 

subpart 4. Id. 

14 Id. at 31569. 

15 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015). 

16 Id. at 18529; see also proposed rule, 80 FR 1482 

(January 12, 2015). Air quality data for 2012–2014 

indicated that the highest monitors in the San 

Joaquin Valley area had design values of 19.7 mg/ 

m3 for the annual standard and 71 mg/m3 for the 24- 

hour standard. 

17 80 FR 18258 at 18530–18532. 

established these standards after 

considering substantial evidence from 

numerous health studies demonstrating 

that serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to PM2.5 concentrations 

above these levels. 

Epidemiological studies have shown 

statistically significant correlations 

between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Other important 

health effects associated with PM2.5

exposure include aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions, emergency room visits, 

absences from school or work, and 

restricted activity days), changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms. There is also new evidence 

for more subtle indicators of 

cardiovascular health. Individuals 

particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure 

include older adults, people with heart 

and lung disease, and children.3

PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

(primary PM2.5 or direct PM2.5) or can be 

formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from 

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur oxides, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia (secondary 

PM2.5).4

B. San Joaquin Valley Designations, 

Classifications, and Attainment Dates 

for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required 

under CAA section 107(d) to designate 

areas throughout the nation as attaining 

or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 

5, 2005, the EPA published initial air 

quality designations for the 1997 annual 

and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, using air 

quality monitoring data for the threeyear periods of 2001–2003 and 2002– 

2004.5 These designations became 

effective April 5, 2005.6 The EPA 

designated the San Joaquin Valley area 

as nonattainment for both the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standards and the 1997 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards.7

The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

nonattainment area encompasses over 

23,000 square miles and includes all or 

part of eight counties: San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 

Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of 

Kern.8 The area is home to four million 

people and is the nation’s leading 

agricultural region. Stretching over 250 

miles from north to south and averaging 

80 miles wide, it is partially enclosed by 

the Coast Mountain range to the west, 

the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, 

and the Sierra Nevada range to the east. 

Under state law, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB or ‘‘State’’) is 

the Governor’s designee for adoption 

and submittal of the state 

implementation plan (SIP) and SIP 

revisions to the EPA in compliance with 

CAA requirements. CARB is also 

generally responsible under state law for 

the regulation of mobile emission 

sources. Local air pollution control 

districts are responsible for regulation of 

stationary emission sources. In the San 

Joaquin Valley, regional air quality 

plans are developed by the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’) with 

input from CARB and typically rely on 

both mobile source control measures for 

which CARB is responsible and 

stationary source control measures for 

which the District is responsible. Once 

the District adopts a regional air quality 

plan, the plan is submitted to CARB for 

adoption as part of the California SIP 

and submittal to the EPA. 

Between 2007 and 2011, California 

made six SIP submissions to address 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the San Joaquin Valley.9 We refer to 

these submissions collectively as the 

‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan.’’ On November 9, 

2011, the EPA approved all elements of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan except for the 

contingency measures, which the EPA 

disapproved.10 As part of that action 

and pursuant to CAA section 

172(a)(2)(A), the EPA granted 

California’s request for an extension of 

the attainment date for the San Joaquin 

Valley area to April 5, 2015.11

A 2013 court decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

(‘‘D.C. Circuit’’) in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA concluded that 

the EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 standards solely pursuant to the 

general implementation requirements of 

subpart 1, without also considering the 

requirements specific to PM10

nonattainment areas in subpart 4, part D 

of title I of the CAA.12 Consistent with 

the NRDC decision, on June 2, 2014, the 

EPA classified all areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 or the 2006 

PM2.5 standards as ‘‘Moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas under subpart 4.13

Because this rulemaking did not affect 

any action that the EPA had previously 

taken under section 110(k) of the Act on 

a SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment area, the 

April 5, 2015 attainment date that the 

EPA had approved for the San Joaquin 

Valley area in November 2011 remained 

in effect.14

On April 7, 2015, the EPA reclassified 

the San Joaquin Valley area as a 

‘‘Serious’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area 

under subpart 4, based on the EPA’s 

determination that the area could not 

practicably attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards by the April 5, 2015 

attainment date.15 This reclassification 

was based upon the EPA’s evaluation of 

ambient air quality data from the 2003– 

2014 period, including the 2012–2014 

design value, which indicated that it 

was not practicable for certain 

monitoring sites within the San Joaquin 

Valley area to show PM2.5 design values 

at or below the level of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by April 5, 2015.16

As a consequence of reclassification 

as a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

the San Joaquin Valley area became 

subject to a new attainment date under 

CAA section 188(c)(2) and the 

requirement to submit a Serious area 

plan that satisfies the requirements of 

part D of title I of the Act, including the 

requirements of subpart 4, for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.17 Under subpart 4, the 

attainment date for an area classified as 

Serious is as expeditiously as 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
69450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

18 Id. 

19 Id. at 18531. 

20 Id. 

21 81 FR 6936 (February 9, 2016). 

22See U.S. EPA, Final rule, ‘‘Denial of Request for 

Extension of Attainment Date for 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious 

Nonattainment Area,’’ to be published in the same 

edition of the Federal Register as this proposed 

rule, and U.S. EPA Fact Sheet, ‘‘San Joaquin Valley 

Fine Particulate Matter,’’ June 29, 2016. 

23The annual PM2.5 standard design value is the 

3-year average of annual mean concentration, and 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are met when the 

annual standard design value at each eligible 

monitoring site is less than or equal to 15.0 mg/m3. 

24The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the 

3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour 

average values recorded at each eligible monitoring 

site, and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are met 

when the 24-hour standard design value at each 

such monitoring site is less than or equal to 65 mg/ 

m3. 

practicable, but no later than the end of 

the tenth calendar year following 

designation. As explained in the EPA’s 

final reclassification action, the Serious 

area plan for the San Joaquin Valley 

must include provisions to assure that 

the best available control measures for 

the control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors shall be implemented no 

later than 4 years after the area is 

reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)), 

and a demonstration (including air 

quality modeling) that the plan provides 

for attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than December 

31, 2015, which is the latest permissible 

attainment date under CAA section 

188(c)(2).18

Given the December 31, 2015 

outermost attainment deadline for the 

San Joaquin Valley area under section 

188(c)(2), the EPA noted its expectation 

that the State would adopt and submit 

a Serious area plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley well before the statutory SIP 

submission deadlines in CAA section 

189(b)(2).19 The EPA also noted that, in 

light of the available ambient air quality 

data and the short amount of time 

available before the December 31, 2015 

attainment date, California could choose 

to submit a request for an extension of 

the Serious area attainment date 

pursuant to CAA section 188(e) 

simultaneously with its submission of a 

Serious area plan for the area.20

California submitted its 1997 PM2.5

Serious area plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley in two submittals dated June 25, 

2015 and August 13, 2015, including a 

request under section 188(e) to extend 

the attainment date for the 1997 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by three years (to 

December 31, 2018) and to extend the 

attainment date for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by five years (to 

December 31, 2020). The EPA proposed 

to approve most of the San Joaquin 

Valley 1997 PM2.5 Serious area plan, to 

conditionally approve the Plan’s 

quantitative milestones, to disapprove 

the plan’s contingency measures, and to 

grant the requested attainment date 

extensions.21 We received adverse 

comments on our proposal on several 

aspects of the plan and its control 

measures. Upon further evaluation of 

the plan and after consideration of the 

comments, the EPA decided it could no 

longer support an action to extend the 

attainment date for the San Joaquin 

Valley Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.22

Since the EPA has not approved the 

requested attainment date extensions, 

the applicable attainment date remains 

December 31, 2015 for the San Joaquin 

Valley with respect to the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. As discussed in section II of 

this proposed rule, the EPA must 

determine, based on air quality data as 

of the attainment date, whether an area 

attained the applicable NAAQS by its 

attainment date. 

II. Proposed Determination and 

Consequences 

A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions 

Sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the 

CAA require the EPA to determine 

whether a PM2.5 nonattainment area 

attained the applicable PM2.5 standards 

by the applicable attainment date, based 

on the area’s air quality as of the 

attainment date. 

A determination of whether an area’s 

air quality meets the PM2.5 standards is 

generally based upon the most recent 

three years of complete, quality-assured 

data gathered at established State and 

Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) 

in a nonattainment area and entered 

into the EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. Data from ambient air 

monitors operated by state/local 

agencies in compliance with the EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies 

annually certify that these data are 

accurate to the best of their knowledge. 

Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily 

on data in AQS when determining the 

attainment status of areas. See 40 CFR 

50.7; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix L; 40 

CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 

CFR part 58, Appendices A, C, D, and 

E. All data are reviewed to determine 

the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, § 50.7 and in accordance with 

Appendix N, the 1997 annual PM2.5

standards are met when the design 

value is less than or equal to 15.0 mg/ 

m3 (based on the rounding convention 

in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N) at each 

eligible monitoring site within the 

area.23 Data completeness requirements 

for a given year are met when at least 

75 percent of the scheduled sampling 

days for each quarter have valid data. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, section 50.7 and in accordance with 

Appendix N, the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

standards are met when the design 

value is less than or equal to 65 mg/m3

(based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix N) at each 

eligible monitoring site within the 

area.24 Data completeness requirements 

for a given year are met when at least 

75 percent of the scheduled sampling 

days for each quarter have valid data. 

B. Monitoring Network Considerations 

Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA 

requires states to establish and operate 

air monitoring networks to compile data 

on ambient air quality for all criteria 

pollutants. Our monitoring 

requirements are specified by regulation 

in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements 

are applicable to state, and where 

delegated, local air monitoring agencies 

that operate criteria pollutant monitors. 

Our regulations in 40 CFR part 58 

establish specific requirements for 

operating air quality surveillance 

networks to measure ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5, including 

requirements for measurement methods, 

network design, quality assurance 

procedures, and in the case of large 

urban areas, the minimum number of 

monitoring sites designated as SLAMS. 

In section 4.7 of Appendix D to 40 

CFR part 58, the EPA specifies 

minimum monitoring requirements for 

PM2.5 to operate at SLAMS. SLAMS 

produce data that are eligible for 

comparison with the NAAQS, and 

therefore, the monitor must be an 

approved federal reference method 

(FRM), federal equivalent method 

(FEM), or approved regional method 

(ARM). The minimum number of 

SLAMS required is described in section 

4.7.1, and can be met by either filterbased or continuous FRMs or FEMs. The 

monitoring regulations also provide that 

each core-based statistical area must 

operate a minimum number of PM2.5

continuous monitors (section 4.7.2); 

however, this requirement can be met 

by either an FEM or a non-FEM 

continuous monitor, and the continuous 

monitors can be located with other 

SLAMS or at a different location. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69451 

25Letter dated December 28, 2015, from Meredith 

Kurpius, Manager, EPA Region 9, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, to Sheraz Gill, Director of 

Strategies and Incentives, SJVUAPCD. 

26There are a number of other PM2.5 monitoring 

sites within the valley, including other sites 

operated by the District, the National Park Service, 

and certain Indian tribes, but the data collected 

from these sites are non-regulatory and not eligible 

for use in determining whether the San Joaquin 

Valley has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

27See, e.g., letter from Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, 

Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment 

Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Acting Director, 

Air Division, EPA Region 9, certifying calendar year 

2015 ambient air quality data and quality assurance 

data, dated May 10, 2016. 

28See, e.g., letter from Jon Klassen, Program 

Manager, SJVUAPCD, letter to Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, certifying 

calendar year 2015 ambient air quality data and 

quality assurance data, dated May 9, 2016. 

29See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b) 

for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and section 4.2(b) for 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Each year the EPA 

produces a workbook identifying PM2.5 monitors 

with valid design values taking into account the 

data substitution tests set forth in 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N, section 4 where appropriate. The 

workbook design values reflect the concentration 

data input to AQS, but the design values calculated 

therein differ for some monitors from the design 

values calculated by AQS because at this time only 

the workbook design values accurately accounts for 

the two data substitution tests set forth in 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix N, section 4.0. 

Consequently, the monitoring 

requirements for PM2.5 can be met with 

filter-based FRMs/FEMs, continuous 

FEMs, continuous non-FEMs, or a 

combination of monitors at each 

required SLAMS. 

Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are 

required to submit Annual Network 

Plans for ambient air monitoring 

networks for approval by the EPA. 

Within the San Joaquin Valley, CARB 

and the District are the agencies 

responsible for assuring that the area 

meets air quality monitoring 

requirements. The District submits 

annual monitoring network plans to the 

EPA that describe the various 

monitoring sites operated by the District 

as well as those operated by CARB 

within the San Joaquin Valley. These 

plans discuss the status of the air 

monitoring network, as required under 

40 CFR 58.10. The most recent plan 

submitted by the District is the 2015 Air 

Monitoring Network Plan, dated August 

28, 2015. The EPA regularly reviews 

these Annual Network Plans for 

compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

58. On December 28, 2015, the EPA 

approved those portions of the 2015 Air 

Monitoring Network Plan that pertain to 

the adequacy of the network for PM2.5

monitoring purposes.25

During the 2013–2015 period, PM2.5

ambient concentration data that is 

eligible for use in determining whether 

an area has attained the PM2.5 NAAQS 

were collected at a total of 17 sites 

within the San Joaquin Valley: four sites 

in Fresno County; three sites in Kern 

County; two sites each in Kings, 

Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus 

counties; and one site each in Madera 

and Tulare counties. The District 

operates 10 of these sites while CARB 

operates seven of the sites. Fourteen of 

the sites are designated SLAMS for 

PM2.5. Three of the sites are designated 

as special purpose monitors (i.e., the 

Merced (Coffee Street), Tranquility, and 

Hanford sites), but the PM2.5 data 

collected there are eligible for use in 

determining PM2.5 NAAQS compliance 

due to the duration of monitoring at the 

site and the use of FRM or FEM 

monitors consistent with EPA quality 

assurance requirements and siting 

criteria.26 The primary monitors are 

FRMs at 11 of the 17 sites and beta 

attenuation monitor FEMs at six of the 

17 sites. 

Based on our review of the PM2.5

monitoring network as summarized 

above, we find that monitoring network 

in the San Joaquin Valley is adequate for 

the purpose of collecting ambient PM2.5

concentration data for use in 

determining whether the San Joaquin 

Valley attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

by the December 31, 2015 attainment 

date. 

C. Data Considerations and Proposed 

Determination 

Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring 

agencies must certify, on an annual 

basis, data collected at all SLAMS and 

at all FRM, FEM, and ARM SPM 

stations that meet EPA quality assurance 

requirements. In doing so, monitoring 

agencies must certify that the previous 

year of ambient concentration and 

quality assurance data are completely 

submitted to AQS and that the ambient 

concentration data are accurate to the 

best of her or his knowledge. CARB 

annually certifies that the data the 

agency submits to AQS are quality 

assured, including data collected by 

CARB at monitoring sites in the San 

Joaquin Valley.27 SJVUAPCD does the 

same for data submitted to AQS from 

monitoring sites operated by the 

District.28

As noted above, CAA sections 

179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) require the EPA 

to determine whether a PM2.5

nonattainment area attained the 

applicable PM2.5 standards by the 

applicable attainment date, based on the 

area’s air quality ‘‘as of the attainment 

date.’’ For the San Joaquin Valley, for 

reasons discussed above, the applicable 

attainment date is December 31, 2015 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Because determinations of PM2.5

NAAQS compliance, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, are based 

on three calendar years of data, to 

determine the San Joaquin Valley’s air 

quality as of December 31, 2015, we 

must review the data collected during 

the three-year period immediately 

preceding December 31, 2015, i.e., 

January 1, 2013–December 31, 2015. 

Thus, we verified that the data for the 

2013–2015 period have been certified by 

the relevant monitoring agencies, and 

then we reviewed the data for 

completeness. We note above the most 

recent annual data certifications from 

CARB and the District. With respect to 

completeness, we determined that the 

data collected by CARB and the District 

meet the quarterly completeness 

criterion for all 12 quarters of the threeyear period at most of the PM2.5

monitoring sites in the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

More specifically, among the 17 PM2.5

monitoring sites from which regulatory 

data are available, the data from four of 

the sites did not meet the 75% 

completeness criterion (for each 

quarter); however, the data from all but 

one site (Bakersfield—Golden State 

Highway) are sufficient nonetheless to 

produce a valid design value for either 

the annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the rules 

governing design value validity in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix N, sections 4.1 

and 4.2. We note that monitors with 

incomplete data in one or more quarters 

may still produce valid design values if 

the conditions for applying one of the 

EPA’s data substitution tests are met.29

Table 1 and Table 2 show the annual 

and 24-hour PM2.5 design values, 

respectively, at each of the 17 

monitoring sites within the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area for the 

relevant three-year period (2013–2015). 

The tables show that the annual PM2.5

design values for the 2013–2015 period 

are greater than 15.0 mg/m3 at eight of 

the sites and that the 24-hour PM2.5

design values are greater than 65 mg/m3

at four of the sites. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
69452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—2013–2015 ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA

General location Site 

(AQS ID) 

Annual Mean (μg/m3) 2013–2015 

Annual design values 

(μg/m3) 2013 2014 2015 

Fresno County: 

Fresno–Pacific .............................................................................. 06–019–5025 15.9 13.8 14.1 14.6 

Fresno—Garland .......................................................................... 06–019–0011 16.8 15.1 14.4 15.4 

Clovis ............................................................................................ 06–019–5001 15.9 14.8 15.0 15.2 

Tranquility a ................................................................................... 06–019–2009 8.3 Inc 10.0 8.7 

Kern County: 

Bakersfield—Planz Road .............................................................. 06–029–0016 22.8 21.6 17.9 20.8 

Bakersfield—California Ave. ......................................................... 06–029–0014 20.0 18.6 16.3 18.3 

Bakersfield—Golden State Highway ............................................ 06–029–0010 Inc Inc 16.7 Inv 

Kings County: 

Corcoran a b ................................................................................... 06–031–0004 15.6 15.4 Inc 22.2 

Hanford ......................................................................................... 06–031–1004 18.2 17.5 16.6 17.4

Madera County: 

Madera—Avenue 14 ..................................................................... 06–039–2010 17.8 14.0 13.8 15.2 

Merced County: 

Merced—M Street ......................................................................... 06–047–2510 13.5 11.2 12.6 12.5 

Merced—Coffee ............................................................................ 06–047–0003 13.3 10.8 12.8 12.3 

San Joaquin County: 

Stockton ........................................................................................ 06–077–1002 17.7 12.1 12.8 14.2

Manteca ........................................................................................ 06–077–2010 11.7 9.8 12.6 11.4 

Stanislaus County: 

Modesto ........................................................................................ 06–099–0005 14.5 11.4 Inc Inv 

Turlock .......................................................................................... 06–099–0006 15.1 12.3 14.4 13.9 

Tulare County: 

Visalia ........................................................................................... 06–107–2002 18.9 17.9 16.1 17.6 

Notes: Inc = Incomplete data. Inv = Invalid design value due to incomplete data. Design values shown in bold type do not meet the applicable 

NAAQS. 

Source: EPA, AQS Design Value Report, Report Request ID: 1463864, July 15, 2016, except as otherwise noted. 

aSource: EPA, design value workbook dated July 29, 2016, worksheet ‘‘Table 5. PM2.5 Site Listing, 2013–2015,’’ column S. b The 2015 design value site (Corcoran-Patterson) is based on concentration data from January 1, 2013 to February 6, 2015. Data from February 7, 2015 to December 31, 2015 are not available due to a fire that destroyed the site. Based on design value calculation methodologies described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.1(b), the annual design value for Corcoran-Patterson is considered valid despite the missing 

2015 data. The second highest 2013–2015 concentration (annual PM2.5 design value of 20.8 μg/m3) at Bakersfield-Planz includes data measured for three years (January 1, 2013–December 31, 2015). 

TABLE 2—2013–2015 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA

General location Site 

(AQS ID) 

98th Percentile (μg/m3) 2013–2015 

24-Hour 

design 

values 

(μg/m3) 

2013 2014 2015 

Fresno County: 

Fresno—Pacific ............................................................................. 06–019—5025 71.6 61.8 42.0 58 

Fresno–Garland ............................................................................ 06–019–0011 63.8 66.7 52.0 61 

Clovis ............................................................................................ 06–019–5001 56.2 64.5 45.7 55

Tranquility a ................................................................................... 06–019–2009 35.7 Inc 35.8 34 

Kern County: 

Bakersfield—Planz Road .............................................................. 06–029–0016 96.7 76.7 56.5 77 

Bakersfield—California Ave. ......................................................... 06–029–0014 71.8 79.9 57.2 70 

Bakersfield—Golden State Highway a .......................................... 06–029–0010 Inc 107.2 51.5 Inv 

Kings County: 

Corcoran b ..................................................................................... 06–031–0004 66.0 71.0 99.2 79 

Hanford ......................................................................................... 06–031–1004 67.6 81.9 51.4 67 

Madera County: 

Madera—Avenue 14 ..................................................................... 06–039–2010 54.6 56.0 43.7 51 

Merced County: 

Merced—M Street ......................................................................... 06–047–2510 67.3 45.9 39.0 51 

Merced—Coffee ............................................................................ 06–047–0003 42.3 43.8 40.3 42 

San Joaquin County: 

Manteca ........................................................................................ 06–077–2010 40.2 40.0 42.7 41 

Stockton ........................................................................................ 06–077–1002 56.3 44.5 39.1 47 

Stanislaus County: 

Modesto ........................................................................................ 06–099–0005 56.4 49.5 30.8 46 

Turlock .......................................................................................... 06–099–0006 55.4 51.2 47.3 51 

Tulare County: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69453 

30EPA, AQS Raw Data Qualifier Report, Report 

Request ED: 1464417, July 18, 2016. 

31EPA, AQS Design Value Report, Report Request 

ED: 1463865, July 15, 2016. 

32 81 FR 58010 at 58100, 58158 (August 24, 2016). 

The EPA defines PM2.5 plan precursor as those 

PM2.5 precursors required to be regulated in the 

applicable attainment plan and/or nonattainment 

new source review program. 81 FR 58010 at 58152. 

TABLE 2—2013–2015 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA— 

Continued 

General location Site 

(AQS ID) 

98th Percentile (μg/m3) 2013–2015 

24-Hour 

design 

values 

(μg/m3) 

2013 2014 2015 

Visalia ........................................................................................... 06–107–2002 62.5 75.4 45.8 61

Notes: Inc = Incomplete data. Inv = Invalid design value due to incomplete data. Design values shown in bold type do not meet the applicable 

NAAQS. 

Source: EPA, AQS Design Value Report, Report Request ID: 1463864, July 15, 2016, except as otherwise noted. 

aSource: EPA, design value workbook dated July 29, 2016, worksheet ‘‘Table 5. PM2.5 Site Listing, 2013–2015,’’ column Z. bThe 2015 design value site (Corcoran-Patterson) is based on concentration data from January 1, 2013 to February 6, 2015. Data from February 7, 2015 to December 31, 2015 are not available due to a fire that destroyed the site. Based on design value calculation methodologies described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2(b), the 24-hour design value for Corcoran-Patterson is considered valid despite the missing 

2015 data. The second highest 2013–2015 concentration (24-hour PM2.5 design value of 77 μg/m3) at Bakersfield—Planz includes data measured for three years (January 1, 2013–December 31, 2015). 

The data in Tables 1 and 2 show that 

a number of sites in central and 

southern San Joaquin Valley failed to 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 

December 31, 2015 and that the 

geographic extent of failure to attain the 

1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was more 

limited than for the annual standard in 

that only sites in southwestern San 

Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 24- 

hour standard. The 2015 annual design 

value site, i.e., the site with the highest 

design value based on 2013–2015 data, 

is the Corcoran site with a 2015 annual 

PM2.5 design value of 22.2 mg/m3. With 

respect to the 24-hour average, the 2015 

design value site is the Corcoran site 

with a 24-hour PM2.5 design value of 79 

mg/m3. 

For an area to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by December 31, 2015, the 2015 

design value (reflecting data from 2013– 

2015) at each eligible monitoring site 

must be equal to or less than 15.0 mg/ 

m3 for the annual standard and 65 mg/ 

m3 for the 24-hour standard. Tables 1 

and 2 show that the 2015 design values 

at a number of sites in the San Joaquin 

Valley are greater than those values. 

Therefore, based on quality-assured and 

certified data for 2013–2015, we are 

proposing to determine that the San 

Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards by 

the December 31, 2015 attainment date. 

Lastly, we note that, under our 

regulations at 40 CFR 50.14, a 

monitoring agency may request the EPA 

to exclude data showing exceedances or 

violations of the standard that are 

directly due to an exceptional event 

from use in determinations by 

demonstrating that such event caused a 

specific air pollution concentration at a 

particular air quality monitoring 

location. A monitoring agency notifies 

the EPA of its intent to request 

exclusion of concentrations by placing a 

‘‘flag’’ in the appropriate field for the 

data of concern in AQS. 

For PM2.5 ambient data collected from 

2013–2015, the District ‘‘flagged’’ one 

24-hour concentration at the Bakersfield 

(Planz Road) site and two 24-hour 

concentrations at the Bakersfield 

(California Avenue) site due to high 

winds. The District also flagged twentyfour 24-hour concentrations at each of 

the Madera and Merced (Coffee Avenue) 

sites due to wildfire.30

The State has not requested 

concurrence on the flagged data, and 

thus the data are not excluded from the 

set of data used to determine whether 

the standard was attained. However, 

even if all of the flagged data were to be 

excluded, i.e., even if the EPA had 

concurred on the data as qualifying as 

exceptional events, the design values 

reported in Tables 1 and 2, though 

slightly lower at certain sites, would 

remain well above the NAAQS.31

For instance, the 2015 annual PM2.5

design value at the Bakersfield (Planz 

Road) monitoring site would be 20.4 mg/ 

m3 instead of 20.8 mg/m3 if all of the 

flagged data were excluded. Thus, it 

would still fail to attain the applicable 

standard of 15.0 mg/m3. Similarly, the 

2015 24-hour PM2.5 design value at the 

same site would be 72 mg/m3 instead of 

77 mg/m3 if all of the flagged data were 

excluded, thus also failing to attain the 

applicable standard of 65 mg/m3. 

Furthermore, several additional sites, 

for which the District has not flagged 

exceptional events, exceed the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2015 annual 

PM2.5 design values (i.e., FresnoGarland, Clovis, Corcoran, Hanford, and 

Visalia) and 2015 24-hour design values 

(i.e., Corcoran and Hanford). 

D. Consequences for Serious PM2.5

Nonattainment Area Failing To Attain 

Standards by Attainment Date 

The consequences for a Serious PM2.5

nonattainment area for failing to attain 

the standards by the applicable 

attainment date are set forth in CAA 

sections 179(d) and 189(d). Under 

section 179(d), a state must submit a SIP 

revision for the area meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 110 and 

172, the latter of which requires, among 

other elements, a demonstration of 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, and contingency measures. 

CAA section 189(d) requires that the SIP 

revision must provide for attainment of 

the standards and, from the date of the 

SIP submittal until attainment, for an 

annual reduction in the emissions of 

PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor 

pollutant within the area of not less 

than five percent of the amount of such 

emissions as reported in the most recent 

inventory prepared for such area.32 The 

requirement for a new attainment 

demonstration under CAA section 

189(d) also triggers the requirement for 

the SIP revision for quantitative 

milestones under section 189(c) that are 

to be achieved every three years until 

redesignation to attainment. 

The new attainment date is set by 

CAA section 179(d)(3), which relies 

upon section 172(a)(2) to establish a 

new attainment date but with a different 

starting point than provided in section 

172(a)(2). Under section 179(d)(3), the 

new attainment date is the date by 

which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years from the date of the final 

determination of failure to attain, except 

that the EPA may extend the attainment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
69454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

date for a period no greater than 10 

years from the final determination, 

considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability and 

feasibility of pollution control measures. 

Lastly, section 179(d) requires that the 

state submit the required SIP revision 

within 12 months after the applicable 

attainment date. In this case, if the EPA 

finalizes the proposed rule, then the 

State of California will be required to 

submit a SIP revision that complies with 

sections 179(d) and 189(d) within 12 

months of December 31, 2015, i.e., by 

December 31, 2016. 

III. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 

188(b)(2), the EPA proposes to 

determine that the San Joaquin Valley 

‘‘Serious’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area has 

failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards by the applicable 

attainment date of December 31, 2015. 

If finalized, the State of California will 

be required under CAA sections 179(d) 

and 189(d) to submit a revision to the 

SIP for the San Joaquin Valley that, 

among other elements, demonstrates 

expeditious attainment of the standards 

within the time period provided under 

CAA section 179(d) and that provides 

for annual reduction in the emissions of 

PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor 

pollutant within the area of not less 

than five percent until attainment. The 

SIP revision required under CAA 

sections 179(d) and 189(d) would be 

due for submittal to the EPA no later 

than December 31, 2016. 

The EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. We will 

consider these comments before taking 

final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed action in and of itself 

establishes no new requirements; it 

merely documents that air quality in the 

San Joaquin Valley did not meet the 

1997 PM2.5 standards by the CAA 

deadline. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP obligations discussed herein do 

not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this 

proposed action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

Nonetheless, the EPA has notified the 

Tribes within the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 nonattainment area of the 

proposed action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: September 23, 2016. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–24084 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–BB46 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for Louisiana Pinesnake 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis 

ruthveni), a reptile species from 

Louisiana and Texas, as a threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as 

proposed, it would extend the Act’s 

protections to this species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

December 5, 2016. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by November 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the Search panel on 

the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2016– 

0121, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad 

S. Rieck, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS